Letters to the Editor
TWU Quarrel a Local Matter

To the Editor:

Your editorial "Rein in Toussaint's Abuses" (Jan. 18 issue) requires that I correct The Chief's misconception of the relationship between Local 100, TWU and the Transport Workers Union of America (the International).

Local 100 is an affiliate of TWU International. It is also important to understand that Local 100 is only one of nearly one hundred TWU local unions from all over the United States that are affiliated with the International. The members of these local unions work mainly in the airline and railroad industries as well as the transit industry; in addition, TWU locals include significant numbers of employees who work for utilities, educational institutions and Las Vegas casinos.

Each of our locals, large or small, has its own complicated democratic politics, with the rights of members guaranteed by the TWU Constitution as well as by the law. More important for you to understand, the TWU Constitution defines the scope of authority of and relationship between TWU and its affiliated locals.

Given the complex diversity of the TWU membership at the various TWU locals - located throughout the U.S., working in various industries, and of different ethnic backgrounds, among other things - I think that anyone ought to be able to understand that the International is able to unify them under one umbrella in part through its Constitution that sets forth and distinguishes the authority and jurisdiction of the locals from that of the International. Indeed, it is one of our proud boasts at TWU, and one that we are not too modest to use prominently in our organizing efforts, that our TWU International Constitution grants meaningful local autonomy to our locals.

This brings me to the fundamental misconception of your editorial. You state that as president of TWU I "outrank" the President of Local 100. That misstates the issue. As set forth in the TWU Constitution, the TWU International President has a sphere of authority and the president (and other officers and governing bodies) of each local have theirs. When a local president or executive board acts within its local autonomy under the TWU Constitution, I have no license to "assert [my] authority," or to "rein in" a Local (as you assert I should with Local 100).

I am aware that The Chief, along with certain political opponents of Roger Toussaint at Local 100, believes that certain moves that Roger has made in assigning union representatives to certain positions were unwise or worse. But, under the TWU Constitution, unless there is a violation, the proper party to correct alleged lack of judgment or abusiveness is not the International, but the members of the local voting for officers in their local elections. Moreover, a claim properly brought before the International that one of our locals is acting in violation of our Constitution must be ruled on not by the TWU President, but by the various TWU International committees or governing bodies.

I would think that your journal, which takes an interest in labor in general and TWU in particular, would understand better than most that international presidents cannot simply "intefere[] from above" (as you state) but that instead unions are presided over by officers and governing bodies in accordance with constitutions, by-laws and legal provisions.

JAMES C. LITTLE, International President, TWU of America